2Cor10:5 - Taking Every Thought Captive

“I will sing of the steadfast love of the LORD, forever; with my mouth I will make known your faithfulness to all generations. For I said, “Steadfast love will be built up forever; in the heavens you will establish your faithfulness.” You have said, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one; I have sworn to David my servant: ‘I will establish your offspring forever, and build your throne for all generations.’” Selah

Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones! For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD? Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD, a God greatly to be feared in the council of the...

In the conversation that has recently erupted regarding the authenticity and reliability of Codex Sinaiticus, a concern has been raised regarding how higher critics, particularly those featured in a recent BBC documentary, are using this manuscript in order to cast theological doubt on such core Christian doctrines as Christ’s deity and his resurrection appearances. The fear expressed by some, who cannot read Sinaiticus, is that because these Higher Critics point to particular features of the codex as alleged proof to support their hypercritical views of the New Testament, the manuscript itself is corrupted and that it is not only unwise to base any modern translations on its text, it is probably harmful to Christian orthodoxy to do so.

As someone who has a degree in Biblical languages, has been reading the Greek New Testament for 25 years and is capable of reading Codex Sinaiticus, I will demonstrate that it is not Sinaiticus that is to blame for the fear and confusion that is being spread. Instead, the real culprits, as you will soon see, are the faulty logic and selective (mis)quoting of the codex by the BBC’s higher critics.

What the BBC’s Higher Critics Said About Sinaiticus

In order to bring you up to speed, it is necessary for you to watch the BBC’s short discussion of Codex Sinaiticus. To help facilitate that, I’ve embeded the video below.

Note: I’ve already addressed the issue of the nature of the textual variants / corrections in Codex Sinaiticus on the September 9th, 2013 episode of my radio program. You can listen to it by clicking here.

In this article I will answer the question, “Does Codex Sinaiticus Teach that Jesus Wasn’t the Son of God Until He Was Baptized?"

In my follow up article I will answer the question, “Does Codex Sinaiticus Deny That Jesus Rose Bodily From the Grave by Omitting the Resurrection Appearances of Jesus?”

Does Codex Sinaiticus Teach that Jesus Wasn’t the Son of God Until He Was Baptized?

Here’s the relevant quote from the BBC’s documentary that I will be focused on in this article:

“Today’s Mark begins with “Jesus Christ the Son of God”. But, the Original Codex Sinaiticus didn’t have “Son of God”. Someone added it later... This is highly significant because in the earlier version Jesus became divine only after his baptism by John the Baptist. The edited insertion makes Jesus divine at birth. Some 19th century readers would have been shocked that Mark did not share that belief.”

Is it true that Codex Sinaiticus’ version of Mark omits the words “Son of God” and that because of that Mark didn’t believe Jesus was divine at birth?

The claim put forward by the higher critics featured in the BBC’s documentary is a classic example of a tiny bit of truth being mixed with some huge inaccuracies.

It is true that within the main body of the text of Codex Sinaiticus that the words “Son of God” are omitted in Mark 1:1. It is also true that there is a correction within the text that re-inserts the words “Son of God”. This is a well known variant within the text of Sinaiticus. What is patently false and scholastically indefensible is the outrageous conclusion that Mark didn’t believe Jesus was divine until his baptism. This is a criminal twisting of facts intentionally designed to prop up the preposterous claim that the early Christians didn’t believe Jesus was divine until his baptism. The odd thing is that the BBC’s higher critics are trying to make Codex Sinaiticus an accomplice to their crime. As you will see, Codex Sinaiticus doesn’t bend to their will and clearly reveals that the earliest Christians believed and taught that Jesus is the eternal Son of God.

How to Properly Understand Sinaiticus’ Variant at Mark 1:1

Here is a photo of the opening verses from the Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus:

Why were the words “Son of God” originally omitted then re-inserted in a correction between lines one and two of the manuscript?

The late Bruce Metzger, who was a formidable textual scholar and wasn’t known for being a conservative fundamentalist, wrote about this variant and offered two plausible explanations. Said Metzger:

“The absence of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in א (Sinaticus)...may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the nomina sacra. On the other hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed) to expand titles and quasi-titles of books.”1

Metzger believed the original omission was either due to a simple common scribal error or that the copy of the New Testament the scribe(s) who penned Sinaiticus were working from didn’t have the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Son of God). If the text the scribe(s) were working from didn't contain the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ, Metzger knew that there was no theological significance that could be gleaned from the omission due to the fact the first line of most ancient manuscripts oftentimes functioned as the title of that work. Therefore, Metzger knew that whether or not the original Gospel of Mark contained the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Son of God) in its title, no honest scholar could claim that Mark believed that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God until his baptism because the actual body of the Gospel of Mark doesn’t begin until verse two. The BBC’s higher critics either knew this fact and purposely failed to mention it or weren’t aware of this fact and are not real paleographic scholars.

Did Bruce Metzger believe that the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Son of God) existed in the original title of the Gospel of Mark? Here’s what he wrote:

“Since the combination of D (Codex Vaticanus) D (Codex Bezae) W (Codex Washingtonianus) al (other witnesses) in support of υἱοῦ θεοῦ is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether.”2

Metzger wasn’t comfortable removing the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Son of God) from the title of the Gospel of Mark because the evidence for it is, in his words, “extremely strong”. Some of our earliest and best manuscripts, most notably Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezae, and Codex Washingtonianus all contain υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1.

The other reason Metzger wasn’t comfortable removing the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Son of God) from the title of the Gospel of Mark is because he knew that it was possible that the omission was due to a common scribal error know as, homeoteleuton. This error of omission occurs when a scribe paused, then resumed writing but skipped ahead because of the similarity of the endings of lines or words, thus leaving out a passage or small segment of a text.

A simple comparison of Sinaticus and Vaticanus will demonstrate how easy it would have been to make this error.

Below is a computerized rendition of Mark 1:1-2a from Codex Vaticanus:

Now, compare this with a computerized rendition of the same text from Sinaticus:

Notice that line two in Sinaticus has far fewer letters when compared to the same line in Vaticanus. If Metzger’s explanation is correct, the scribe who penned Sinaticus was working with a text similar to Vaticanus and accidentally did not resume where he left off and inadvertently skipped two words.

This explanation for the omission also means that it is possible that the correction in Sinaticus at Mark 1:1 could have been made by the original scribe after he noticed his mistake. There is no valid reason to conclude that the correction was inserted for theological reasons such as exalting Jesus from being a mere man to being the divine Son of God. That wouldn’t be necessary because, as you are about to see the text of Sinaticus clearly affirms Jesus’ deity throughout its leafs. There would be no reason whatsoever, therefore, to engage in theological editing of that sort.

A Survey of the Texts Supporting the Deity of Christ Taken From Codex Sinaticus

Mark 1:11

I will begin our survey of Sinaiticus by looking at Mark 1:11, the verse that the BBC's higher critics assert teaches that Jesus became divine at his Baptism. Here is the text of Sinaiticus:

My translation: and a voice [came] out of heaven, "You ARE my son, the beloved"

The verb in this sentence, ει, is the 2nd person singular present active indicative form of the verb ειμι (to be). If, as the BBC's higher critics claim, this text were saying that when Jesus was baptized He became the Son of God then the text would not use ειμι it would instead use the verb γινομαι (to become). Rather than saying,

But the text of Sinaiticus at Mark 1:11 does not have γεγόνας it has ει. This proves that the BBC's higher critics are not conveying accurate information about what this text says. Mark 1:11 in Sinaiticus, rather than teaching that Jesus became divine at his baptism actually affirms that Jesus was already divine at his birth!

John 1:1

There is no clearer passage in the New Testament that teaches that Jesus is the eternal divine Son of God than John 1:1. Does Codex Sinaiticus' rendering of this text confirm or deny the eternal divinity of Jesus? Let's take a look.

My translation: In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and God was the word.

I'm sure that this passage must prove to be an major embarrassment to the BBC's higher critics because the text of Sinaiticus so clearly and unambiguously teaches that Jesus was already God at the beginning of beginnings.

Philippians 2:5-8

Philippians 2:5-8 is another one of the clearest passages that teach that Jesus was divine prior to the incarnation. Do you think Sinaiticus affirms or denies Jesus pre-incarnate deity? Here's the text.

My translation: Have this mind in ya'll which is in Christ Jesus, who being by nature God did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped. But emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men and being found in the form of a man he humbled himself becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.

In this passage, Sinaiticus clearly affirms that Jesus is by His very nature, God and was God prior to His incarnation. If the story that the BBC's scholars are feeding us were true then we'd expect to see all sorts of corrections and redactions in this text. But, we don't. Why? Because the BBC's higher critics aren't telling us the truth.

Conclusion

I could cite many more examples from Codex Sinaiticus that demonstrates that this manuscript clearly and unambiguously affirms Christ's divinity. However, the texts that I've already covered are enough to debunk the claim's being made by the BBC's higher critics. Their story is a liberal fiction and the text of Codex Sinaiticus itself, proves it.

Rather than reject Sinaiticus, Christians would be wise to learn how to use Sinaiticus to reject the outlandish and absurd claims of liberal higher critics.

1. Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (p. 62). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

The controversy that has flared up recently regarding the Lutheran Doctrine of Baptism has inspired many brothers in the Reformed Camp to send me emails and point me to the writings of the Reformers outside of the Lutheran stream of the Reformation in order to note how similar their understanding of the Biblical texts that teach the efficacy of Baptism sounds to the Lutheran understanding of these same texts.

Below, are posted several quotes without their author's name next to them. (None of them are Lutherans).

See if you can match up the authors to their quotes without looking at the bottom of this post, where the answers are listed.

Quote 1:

"How do you know yourself to be a son of God in fact as well as in name?”

Answer: “Because I am baptized in the name of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Quote 2:

“And so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted.”

Quote 3: (Taken From a liturgy for Infant Baptism)

“Almighty God, heavenly Father, we give you eternal praise and thanks, that you have granted and bestowed upon this child your fellowship, that you have born him again to yourself through holy baptism, that he has been incorporated into your beloved son, our only savior, and is now your child and heir…”

Quote 4:

“Water in baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration.”

Quote 5:

“Is baptism nothing more than a mere symbol [i.e., picture] of cleansing?”

Answer: “I think it to be such a symbol that the reality is attached to it. For God does not disappoint us when he promises us his gifts. Hence, both pardon of sins and newness of life are certainly offered and received by us in baptism.”

Quote 6: (Taken from a prayer to be prayed before & after baptizing an infant)

“Grant that this child now to be baptized, may receive the fullness of thy grace and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children through Jesus Christ our Lord….[Then, following the baptism:] Seeing now, dearly beloved, that this child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ’s church, let us give thanks unto God Almighty for these benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning…We yield hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it has pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him as thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy church…”

Quote 7:

“In baptism, besides the hand seen that casts the water, is the virtue of the Holy Ghost there, working, without hands, what here was wrought.”

Quote 8:

“But the principal thing that God promises in all the sacraments and to which all the godly in all ages direct their attention (some call it the substance and matter of the sacraments) is Christ the Savior…by whom all the elect are circumcised without hands through the Holy Spirit, and are washed from all their sins.” ... “Now to be baptized in the name of Christ is to be enrolled, entered, and received into the covenant and family, and so into the inheritance of the sons of God,…to be cleansed also from the filthiness of sins, and to be granted the manifold grace of God, in order to lead a new and innocent life…All these things are insured by baptism. For inwardly we are regenerated, purified, and renewed by God through the Holy Spirit; and outwardly we receive the assurance of the greatest gifts in the water, by which also those great benefits are represented, and, as it were, set before our eyes to be beheld.”

--

It would appear from these quotes regarding baptism that the early reformers from the Calvinist stream of the Reformation also believed that God was at work in Baptism delivering what the scriptures promise in the waters of Baptism.

That being noted, I have a personal request. Would those who are Reformed Baptists please stop calling Lutherans heretics. As I see things, if Luther is a heretic for his doctrine of Baptism then so were Calvin, Knox and others in the Reformed stream of the Reformation.

What did the early Church Fathers believe regarding the eternal fate of the wicked? Did they believe in universalism (Rob Bell's "Love Wins" ) or in annihilationism (Conditionalism)? Nope. They believe in the long standing Biblical doctrine of Hell. They believed it was eternal, conscious punishment and clearly argued against both univeralism and annihilationism. The reason for this is simple. This is what God's Word clearly and unambiguously says awaits those who persist in sin and unrighteousness and do not repent and trust Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins.

Ignatius of Antioch

"Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him" (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1–2 [A.D. 110]).

Second Clement

"If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment" (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

"But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’" (ibid., 17:7).

Justin Martyr

"No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments" (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).

"We have been taught that only they may aim at immortality who have lived a holy and virtuous life near to God. We believe that they who live wickedly and do not repent will be punished in everlasting fire" (ibid., 21).

"[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons" (ibid., 52).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp (Who was a disciple of the Apostle John)

"Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 2:3 [A.D. 155]).

Athenagoras (His quote rules out annihationism by name)

"[W]e [Christians] are persuaded that when we are removed from this present life we shall live another life, better than the present one. . . . Then we shall abide near God and with God, changeless and free from suffering in the soul . . . or if we fall with the rest [of mankind], a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere incidental work, that we should perish and be annihilated" (Plea for the Christians 31 [A.D. 177]).

Theophilus of Antioch

"Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. . . . [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . . For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire" (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).

Irenaeus

"[God will] send the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, and the impious, unjust, lawless, and blasphemous among men into everlasting fire" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

"The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . [I]t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever" (ibid., 4:28:2).

Tertullian

"After the present age is ended he will judge his worshipers for a reward of eternal life and the godless for a fire equally perpetual and unending" (Apology 18:3 [A.D. 197]).

"Then will the entire race of men be restored to receive its just deserts according to what it has merited in this period of good and evil, and thereafter to have these paid out in an immeasurable and unending eternity. Then there will be neither death again nor resurrection again, but we shall be always the same as we are now, without changing. The worshipers of God shall always be with God, clothed in the proper substance of eternity. But the godless and those who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in fire equally unending, and they shall have from the very nature of this fire, divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility" (ibid., 44:12–13).

Hippolytus

"Standing before [Christ’s] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: ‘Just is your judgment!’ And the righteousness of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not waste the body but continually bursts forth from the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them" (Against the Greeks 3 [A.D. 212]).

Minucius Felix

"I am not ignorant of the fact that many, in the consciousness of what they deserve, would rather hope than actually believe that there is nothing for them after death. They would prefer to be annihilated rather than be restored for punishment. . . . Nor is there either measure nor end to these torments. That clever fire burns the limbs and restores them, wears them away and yet sustains them, just as fiery thunderbolts strike bodies but do not consume them" (Octavius 34:12–5:3 [A.D. 226]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life" (To Demetrian 24 [A.D. 252]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"We shall be raised therefore, all with our bodies eternal, but not all with bodies alike: for if a man is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, that he may be able worthily to hold converse with angels; but if a man is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed. And righteously will God assign this portion to either company; for we do nothing without the body. We blaspheme with the mouth, and with the mouth we pray. With the body we commit fornication, and with the body we keep chastity. With the hand we rob, and by the hand we bestow alms; and the rest in like manner. Since then the body has been our minister in all things, it shall also share with us in the future the fruits of the past" (Catechetical Lectures 18:19 [A.D. 350]).

I can neither confirm nor rule out the rumors that Steven Furtick is working on his own version of the Bible. The inability to get definitive answers is, after all, part of the elusive nature of rumors. That being said, I've come to be in possession of what may or may not be excerpts of Biblical passages from the forthcoming, Furtick Audaciously Revised Translation of the Bible.

I've reproduced the excerpts below.

Matthew 5:20 - “For I tell you, unless your audacity exceeds that of the bloggers and haters, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 7:21 - “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one whose audacity changed the world”

Matthew 7:22–23 - “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not burn our plows in your name, and dig ditches in your name, and pray for the sun to stand still?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘That wasn't nearly audacious enough; depart from me, you workers of mediocrity.”

Luke 17:6 - “And the Jesus said, “If you had audacity like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to the sun, 'stand still,' and it would obey you.”

Luke 18:9–14 - “Jesus also told this parable to some bloggers who trusted in sound doctrine, and hated on those who were making a difference in the world: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a blogger and the other a vision casting leader. The Blogger, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you for your Holy and inerrant word and that you've saved me, a sinner, by your grace through the shed blood of your beloved Son. Please, in your mercy send faithful servants into your harvest field who rightly handle your word and faithfully proclaim repentance and the forgiveness of sins in your name to all nations. Men who will both feed your sheep and protect them from the ravenous wolves who twist your word and pervert the gospel.’ But the vision casting leader, looked in his handy dandy pocket mirror and declared how wonderful he was and showered himself with affirmations of his own greatness. Jesus then said, "I tell you, this man, the vision casting leader, went down to his house inspired to audaciously make a difference in the world, rather than the other. For everyone who humbles himself will be irrelevant, but the one who exalts himself will be exalted even more."”

John 21:15–17 - “When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tell those whiny sheep who always complain that the sermon isn't deep enough to grow up and feed themselves.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Beat my sheep and tell them that church isn't for them its for the goats.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tell those lazy sheep of mine to get busy. I've given you a vision and its their job to make it a reality.”

Ephesians 5:6 - “Let no one bore you with irrelevant and traditional church services, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of inaudacity .”

2 Timothy 3:16–17 - “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for inspiration, applause lines, self-affirmation and for training in audacity, that the man of God may be complete, equipped to change the world.”

2 Timothy 4:3–4 - “For the time is coming when people will not endure creativity and inspirational life changing relevance, but having bloggers ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers who will boringly exegete the Bible, and will turn away from listening to audacity and wander off into irrelevant church services that waste all their time worshipping the Lord and hearing God's word rather than selflessly entertaining the goats by letting the praise band rock out to the latest secular hits.”

Revelation 3:1–3 - “And to the angel of the church in (Insert Your Church's Name Here) write: ‘The words of him whose audacity inspired a global movement. “I know your works. You have the reputation for being inspirational, but you are boring and irrelevant. Get with program, and slap the Jordan, for I have found your creativity to be lackluster in the sight of God. Remember, then, Pastor Furtick's audacity which you've witnessed and heard. Strive to be like him. If you will not be audacious enough to inspire the next generation to be greater, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.”

---

Although, I can neither confirm nor deny that these excerpts were authored by Steven Furtick, one thing is certain, they sure do sound like he authored them.

In a mass delivered by Pope Francis on May 22nd, 2013 at St. Martha's residence in the Vatican, Francis claimed that every human person despite his or her beliefs can do good, and a sharing in good works is the prime place for encounter among those who disagree. Said the Pope:

“The Lord created us in his image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and he does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and avoid evil. All of us.”

“We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

So, on the one hand, the Pope says atheists must do good works and that is the place where we're supposed to meet them. But, on the other hand, the scriptures say, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot." (Rom. 8:7) AND “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6) AND the first and greatest commandment is "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength". (Mark 12:30) Since atheists are hostile to God, don't have faith, don't love Him with all their hearts but in their unrighteousness suppress the truth by denying that God exists (Rom 1:17–22), how on Earth are atheists supposed to do 'good works that are pleasing to God'? Scripture clearly says that it can't be done!

Thank you Pope Francis for once again proving the falsehood of the Roman doctrine of "Papal Infallibility". As for me, I'll stick with the infallible word of God.

When was the last time you read a transcript from a bona fide heresy trial? Chances are you've never had an occasion to read anything like that. Therefore, let me introduce you to an ancient document that contains the transcript of a real heresy trial held in 381 A.D. at the Council of Aquileia against the heretics Palladius and Secundianus.

As you will read, the defendants were charged with and found guilty of teaching the Arian Heresy.

It is important to note that a trial like this, if held today, would be mocked and ridiculed and condemned not only by the world but by many people who call themselves Christian. Yet, the document reproduced below demonstrates just how deadly serious the ancient church was about heresy and their zeal in obeying God's Word regarding false teachers. Their obedience stands in stark contrast to the modern church's disobedience and I reproduce it here, in part, as an indictment against the church today.

Another thing worth noting were the postmodern word games and subterfuge the defendants employed during the council and how quickly they were overthrown by the bishops in attendance.

Also, the punishments handed down to Palladius and Secundianus were defrocking and excommunication. The guilty were NOT boiled in oil, nor burned at the stake nor drawn and quartered. They suffered no harm in their physical bodies. But, they lost the right, as all heretics should, to teach in and have fellowship within the church.

This document is intense!! I hope you find it educational and convicting.

I never cease to be amazed by the many treasures I find as I study the writings of the ancient Church Fathers. These were not men who ignored the scriptures or who tore them down in the name of "church tradition". Instead, over and again you see in their writings an authentic desire to be faithful to the scriptures and wrestle with its meaning while defending the church from heretics as well as helping the faithful properly understand its correct meaning.

One thing that is very apparent in the writings of the Church Fathers is that neither Tridentine Roman Catholicism nor American Evangelicalism are represented as the mainstream of the ancient church's theological thinking (far from it). In fact, I am convinced that members of both camps would equally struggle with the reality that the ancient Church didn't teach many of their doctrines and oftentimes taught doctrines that contradict core tenets of both systems.

Case and point is the wonderful little letter written by the late 4th century bishop of Milan, Ambrose. In this letter, he is answering a question posed to him by a young man named Irenaeus regarding the purpose of the Mosaic Law. Irenaeus, having been taught from Paul's Epistle to the Romans that the law brings knowledge of sin and wrath and that the Law does not profit for salvation asked Bishop Ambrose the logical question, "Why was the law then given (promulgated)". Ambrose's answer is the equivalent of a 4th Century primer on the proper distinction of Law and Gospel with a clear affirmation of salvation by grace through faith and not by works of the law. This poses a significant challenge to Tridentine Roman Catholicism which anathematized the very doctrine that Ambrose affirms in this letter. Yet, particular details of his answer also challenge a few closely held beliefs of American Evangelicalism. The letter is reproduced below.

Can We Trust the History in the New Testament documents? The short answer to this question is, absolutely!

From time to time, Christians may encounter an atheist or nonbeliever who is armed with the latest "higher" critical arguments against the veracity of the New Testament documents. These opponents of Christianity claim to have evidence that Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew or that the Gospel of John wasn't written until the early 3rd century, etc. But, if you take the time to read good scholarship on these matters you will find that, for all their claims to being deep thinkers and strict evidentialists, the arguments employed by these atheists and "higher" critics against the historical reliability of the New Testament documents are not based in solid evidence. But are, in fact, based in skeptical conjecture and unfounded assertions that, ironically, are irrational and stand contrary to the solid evidence.

Christians have nothing to fear from the historical evidence regarding the New Testament documents. Instead, when Christians take the time to read good scholarship that examines the historical evidence for the New Testament they will find that their faith is built up and strengthened and that they are then armed with solid arguments and evidence to refute the popularized propaganda that masquerades as scholarship that is all too often marshaled against Christianity.

About the middle of the last century it was confidently asserted by a very influential school of thought that some of the most important books of the New Testament, including the Gospels and the Acts, did not exist before the thirties of the second century AD.16 This conclusion was the result not so much of historical evidence as of philosophical presupositions. Even then there was sufficient evidence to show how unfounded these theories were, as Lightfoot, Tischendorf, Tregelles and others demonstrated in their writings; but the amount of such evidence available in our own day is so much greater and more conclusive that a first-century date for most of the New Testament writings cannot reasonably be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.

The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians." Somehow or other, there are people who regard a `sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing. From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.

There are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the well-known Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £loo,ooo on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early mss in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.

Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 Bc) there are several extant mss, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty-five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty mss of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two mss, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant mss of his minor works (Dialogus de Oratoribus, Agricola, Germania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century. The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight Mss, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest mss of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.

But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! In addition to the two excellent mss of the fourth century mentioned above, which are the earliest of some thousands known to us, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from ioo to 200 years earlier still. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, the existence of which was made public in 1931, consist of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contained most of the New Testament writings. One of these, containing the four Gospels with Acts, belongs to the first half of the third century; another, containing Paul's letters to churches and the Epistle to the Hebrews, was copied at the beginning of the third century; the third, containing Revelation, belongs to the second half of the same century. A more recent discovery consists of some papyrus fragments dated by papyrological experts not later than AD 150, published in Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other Early Christian Papyri, by H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat (1935). These fragments contain what has been thought by some to be portions of a fifth Gospel having strong affinities with the canonical four; but much more probable is the view expressed in The Times Literary Supplement for 25 April 1935, `that these fragments were written by someone who had the four Gospels before him and knew them well; that they did not profess to be an independent Gospel; but were paraphrases of the stories and other matter in the Gospels designed for explanation and instruction, a manual to teach people the Gospel stories'.

Earlier still is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33, 37-38, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, dated on palaeographical grounds around AD 130, showing that the latest of the four Gospels, which was written, according to tradition, at Ephesus between AD 9o and loo, was circulating in Egypt within about forty years of its composition (if, as is most likely, this papyrus originated in Egypt, where it was acquired in 1917). It must be regarded as being, by half a century, the earliest extant fragment of the New Testament.

A more recently discovered papyrus manuscript of the same Gospel, while not so early as the Rylands papyrus, is incomparably better preserved; this is the Papyrus Bodmer II, whose discovery was announced by the Bodmer Library of Geneva in 1956; it was written about AD 200, and contains the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John with but one lacuna (of twenty-two verses), and considerable portions of the last seven chapters.19 Attestation of another kind is provided by allusions to and quotations from the New Testament books in other early writings. The authors known as the Apostolic Fathers wrote chiefly between AD 9o and 16o, and in their works we find evidence for their acquaintance with most of the books of the New Testament. In three works whose date is probably round about AD 100 - the `Epistle of Barnabas, written perhaps in Alexandria; the Didache, or `Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, produced somewhere in Syria or Palestine; and the letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about AD 96 - we find fairly certain quotations from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews,l Peter, and possible quotations from other books of the New Testament. In the letters written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, as he journeyed to his martyrdom in Rome in AD 115, there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and possible allusions to mark, Luke, Acts, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. His younger contemporary, Polycarp, in a letter to the Philippians (c. 120) quotes from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, i and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, i Peter, and i John. And so we might go on through the writers of the second century, amassing increasing evidence of their familiarity with and recognition of the authority of the New Testament writings. So far as the Apostolic Fathers are concerned, the evidence is collected and weighed in a work called The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, recording the findings of a committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology in 1905.

Nor is it only in orthodox Christian writers that we find evidence of this sort. It is evident from the recently discovered writings of the Gnostic school of Valentinus that before the middle of the second century most of the New Testament books were as well known and as fully venerated in that heretical circle as they were in the Catholic Church.20 The study of the kind of attestation found in mss and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism.21 This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists' errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.

To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient mss was second to none:

`The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."'(1)

This book and a few others should be in every Christian's library (not to collect dust but to actually be read and understood). Here is a short list of books on this subject. Some of them are for beginners and others are more advanced.

Penal substitution has a long and distinguished pedigree, and was expressely articulated by many in the early Church. Sadly, the myth of the doctrine’s supposed ‘late development’ continues to be perpetuated in books and theological seminaries all over the world. To set the record straight, we have included a few extracts from ancient Christian writings here, all of which are discussed in more detail in the book,Pierced for Our Transgressions.

In many cases, the entire works from which the extracts are taken are available from those wonderful people at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library HERE.

We have declared [our message] in His presence: He is, as it were, a child, and like a root in thirsty ground; He has no form nor glory, yea, we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness; but His form was without eminence, yea, deficient in comparison with the [ordinary] form of men. He is a man exposed to stripes and suffering, anti acquainted with the endurance of grief: for His countenance was turned away; He was despised, and not esteemed. He bears our iniquities, and is in sorrow for our sakes; yet we supposed that [on His own account] He was exposed to labour, and stripes, and affliction. But He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we were healed. All we, like sheep, have gone astray; [every] man has wandered in his own way; and the Lord has delivered Him up for our sins, while He in the midst of His sufferings opened not His mouth. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before her shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away; who shall declare His generation? for His life is taken from the earth. For the transgressions of my people was He brought down to death. And I will give the wicked for His sepulcher, and the rich for His death, because He did no iniquity, neither was guile found in His mouth. And the Lord is pleased to purify Him by stripes. If you make an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed. And the Lord is pleased to relieve Him of the affliction of His soul, to show Him light, and to form Him with understanding, to justify the Just One who ministers well to many; and He Himself shall carry their sins. On this account He shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoil of the strong; because His soul was delivered to death, and He was reckoned among the transgressors, and He bore the sins of many, and for their sins was He delivered.”

For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them’ [Deut 27:26]. And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not practise piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed, we have done no wrong. If, indeed, you repent of your sins, and recognise Him to be Christ, and observe His commandments, then you may assert this; for, as I have said before, remission of sins shall be yours. But if you curse Him and them that believe on Him, and, when you have the power, put them to death, how is it possible that requisition shall not be made of you, as of unrighteous and sinful men, altogether hard-hearted and without understanding, because you laid your hands on Him?

So it is said: 'And the Lord hath laid on him our iniquities, and he bears our sins.' Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf:

'Whom, though he knew no sin, God made sin for our sake, giving him as redemption for all, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.' [2 Cor. 5:21]... And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: 'Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members?' [1 Cor. 12:27] And by the rule that 'if one member suffer all the members suffer with it,' so when the many members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of sympathy ... takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.

For next there follows: I will sacrifice unto Thee freely. The sacrifices of the Law, which consisted of whole burnt-offerings and oblations of goats and of bulls, did not involve an expression of free will, because the sentence of a curse was pronounced on all who broke the Law. Whoever failed to sacrifice laid himself open to the curse. And it was always necessary to go through the whole sacrificial action because the addition of a curse to the commandment forbad any trifling with the obligation of offering. It was from this curse that our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed us, when, as the Apostle says: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made curse for us, for it is written: cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree [Gal. 3:13]. Thus He offered Himself to the death of the accursed that He might break the curse of the Law, offering Himself voluntarily a victim to God the Father, in order that by means of a voluntary victim the curse which attended the discontinuance of the regular victim might be removed.

---

Athanasius (c. 300-373), On the Incarnation

(New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993), sect. 8, p. 34.

Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.

Ibid., sect. 9, p. 35.

The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required.

Take, in the next place, the subjection by which you subject the Son to the Father. What, you say, is He not now subject, or must He, if He is God, be subject to God? You are fashioning your argument as if it concerned some robber, or some hostile deity. But look at it in this manner: that as for my sake He was called a curse, Who destroyed my curse; and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called disobedient on my account. But when all things shall be subdued unto Him on the one hand by acknowledgment of Him, and on the other by a reformation, then He Himself also will have fulfilled His submission, bringing me whom He has saved to God. For this, according to my view, is the subjection of Christ; namely, the fulfilling of the Father’s Will.

And so then, Jesus took flesh that He might destroy the curse of sinful flesh, and He became for us a curse that a blessing might overwhelm a curse, uprightness might overwhelm sin, forgiveness might overwhelm the sentence, and life might overwhelm death. He also took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgment, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death. Therefore, nothing was done contrary to God’s sentence when the terms of that sentence were fulfilled, for the curse was unto death but grace is after death.

If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain;and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son (who was himself of no such character), that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation; and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude? This then let us also now consider with ourselves, and groan bitterly for the provocations we have offered our Benefactor; nor let us therefore presume, because though outraged he bears it with long-suffering; but rather for this very reason be full of remorse.

If we read, ‘Cursed of God is every one that hangeth on a tree,’ [Gal. 3:13; cf.Deut 21:23] the addition of the words ‘of God’ creates no difficulty. For had not God hated sin and our death, He would not have sent His Son to bear and to abolish it. And there is nothing strange in God’s cursing what He hates. For His readiness to give us the immortality which will be had at the coming of Christ, is in proportion to the compassion with which He hated our death when it hung on the cross at the death of Christ. And if Moses curses every one that hangeth on a tree, it is certainly not because he did not foresee that righteous men would be crucified, but rather because He foresaw that heretics would deny the death of the Lord to be real, and would try to disprove the application of this curse to Christ, in order that they might disprove the reality of His death. For if Christ’s death was not real, nothing cursed hung on the cross when He was crucified, for the crucifixion cannot have been real. Moses cries from the distant past to these heretics: Your evasion in denying the reality of the death of Christ is useless. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree; not this one or that, but absolutely every one. What! the Son of God? Yes, assuredly. This is the very thing you object to, and that you are so anxious to evade. You will not allow that He was cursed for us, because you will not allow that He died for us. Exemption from Adam’s curse implies exemption from his death. But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment. And these words ‘every one’ are intended to check the ignorant officiousness which would deny the reference of the curse to Christ, and so, because the curse goes along with death, would lead to the denial of the true death of Christ.

After a period of three years and at the beginning of the fourth he thus draws near to his bodily suffering, which he willingly undergoes on our behalf. For the punishment of the cross was due to us; but if we had all been crucified, we would have had no power to deliver ourselves from death, ‘for death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin’ (Rom. 5:14). There were many holy men, many prophets, many righteous men, but not one of them had the power to ransom himself from the authority of death; but he, the Saviour of all, came and received the punishments which were due to us into his sinless flesh, which was of us, in place of us, and on our behalf.

‘Whereas this Man dies not on His own account, but on account of that other, thou didst then move Me to the afflicting of This one, when thou didst withdraw that other from Me by thy cunning persuasions.’ And of Him it is rightly added, without cause. For ‘he was destroyed without cause,’ who was at once weighed to the earth by the avenging of sin, and not defiled by the pollution of sin. He ‘was destroyed without cause,’ Who, being made incarnate, had no sins of His own, and yet being without offence took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal.

Search

Featured Book

Broken: 7 ''Christian'' Rules That Every Christian Ought to Break as Often as Possible

There are only two kinds of spirituality in the world. One is false, and one is true. One is the manifestation of the old evil foe who has sent many false spiritualties out into the world, and the other is the holy spirituality found only in faith in the one true God. One is a lie, and one is real.
But which is which?
Click Here to Purchase Broken and Learn the Truth!